SB Nation Bay Area Editor's Pick
Does Cal Compete in Too Many Sports?
| Pac-10 Athletic Programs (ordered from most programs to fewest per sport) | |||||||||||||
| CAL | UO | OSU | furd | ucla | SC | UW | WSU | UA | ASU | CU | UU | ||
| Men's Golf | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Women's Golf | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Men's Track and Field | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
| Women's Track and Field | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Men's Cross Country | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Women's Cross Country | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Baseball | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Softball | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Men's Indoor Track (MPSF) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Women's Indoor Track (MPSF) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
| Men's Tennis | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
| Women's Tennis | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Men's Soccer | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Women's Soccer | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| Men's Swimming and Diving | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||
| Women's Swimming and Diving | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||
| Men's Rowing | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||||
| Women's Rowing | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||
| Men's Gymnastics (MPSF) | X | X | |||||||||||
| Women's Gymnastics | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
| Men's Water Polo (MPSF) | X | X | X | X | |||||||||
| Women's Water Polo (MPSF) | X | X | X | X | X | ||||||||
| Men's Wrestling | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| Men's Volleyball (MPSF) | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| Women's Lacrosse (MPSF) | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| Women's Field Hockey (NorPac) | X | X | |||||||||||
| CAL | UO | OSU | furd | ucla | SC | UW | WSU | UA | ASU | CU | UU | ||
| Men's Sports (med=9) | 14 | 8 | 8 | 15 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 7 | |
| Women's Sports (med=11) | 15 | 10 | 10 | 15 | 13 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 8 | 11 | |
| Totals* (med=19.5) | 29 | 18 | 18 | 30 | 24 | 19 | 21 | 18 | 20 | 21 | 14 | 18 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
*Totals include football, men's and women's basketball, and women's volleyball since all Pac-10 schools are required to compete in these sports. Also included are Cal rugby and Utah men's and women's skiing.
Does the University of California carry too many sports teams? That is the philosophical question being faced right now by the university.
The issue is a very sensitive one because the loss of any teams would affect the athletes, coaches, and their contributions to the overall athletic program and university. As a result of a budget deficit, a committee has been formed to address this topic.
The Chancellor's Advisory Council on Intercollegiate Athletics Financial Sustainability will bring together eight leading members of our faculty and alumni community - professors Calvin Moore (mathematics), Fiona Doyle (materials science and engineering), Christopher Kutz (law) and Margaret Conkey (anthropology); and alumni William Ausfahl, Kathleen Correia, Robert Haas and Robert O'Donnell.
Any decision will ultimately be made by Chancellor Birgeneau.
Before anything else, the structure of the department should be closely analyzed. We all know there are several under-performing units within the department that should be reorganized right away. All of those non-athletic units that we've all come to love so much. The savings from a more efficient department can offset a good part of the budget deficit without touching any of the sports teams.
The median number of programs in the conference is 19.5 and Cal is way above this number. That's a big competitive disadvantage when everyone relies on the same two sports for the bulk of their revenues. One side note here. Colorado is barely worthy of Pac-10 membership from an overall athletic perspective with only 14 programs, 4 fewer than the next lowest total.
Many reasonable arguments can be made about what the mission of college athletics should be. In my view, the biggest benefits are keeping alumni involved and attracting attention to the university. Football is by far the most successful in this regard, and generates an enormous amount of publicity. Bringing alumni and other supporters to campus for football games (or having them watch on TV) provides amazing networking opportunities and keeps them connected to the old alma mater.
The issue of funding all these programs remains a concern. Only football and men's basketball generate more revenues than expenses. Golf breaks even in the sense that endowments cover all of the golf scholarships, but it's not clear if that includes coaches salaries and other expenses.
The one thing that's apparent is that football and basketball revenues alone are not enough to cover the expense of operating all 29 programs. The Endowment Seating Program for football seats is an attempt to create an endowment fund large enough to operate the athletic department. With debt payments for the stadium renovations likely taking up a good amount of the ESP revenues, it remains to be seen what the ultimate impact of the ESP will be.
Without access to the financial records, it's difficult to assess how individual programs impact the department. It would be interesting to know how many scholarships are awarded by each sport. Presumably, because of Title IX issues, the number of overall scholarships is equal for men and women.
Looking around the conference, there are some interesting trends. Many sports are sponsored by the MPSF rather than the Pac-10. The MPSF organizes the smaller sports and includes universities from the western US and beyond.
Only 4 sports beyond the 4 mandatory ones have full conference participation. Those are women's cross country, women's soccer, women's track and field, and men's golf.
They're swimming in the desert, but not in the rainy northwest. None of the northwest schools carry men's swimming any longer. In 2009, Washington cut men's and women's swimming for up to $1.2 million a year in savings. Meanwhile, the Arizonas are still maintaining swimming teams.
Other schools have cut sports recently as well. In 2008, Arizona State announced it was cutting wrestling, men's swimming, and men's tennis. Wrestling and swimming were both reinstated after endowment funds were raised. Basically, ASU demanded that those teams pay for themselves in order to continue.
Amazingly, Cal rugby has won 25 national championship since 1980 without awarding any scholarships. Cal rugby is the only program in the conference (as far as i can tell) that operates as an official varsity sport. All the other rugby programs compete as club sports. It's not even clear what schools participate at the division 1 level because USA Rugby doesn't have a comprehensive list on their website.
How did Cal end up with so many sports? Rather than cutting men's sports like most universities have done to comply with Title IX, Cal added three women's sports in the early 1990's to balance things out. Those were water polo, lacrosse and golf. That was a good move to add women's water polo and golf since those men's programs already existed.
The easiest cost savings would be to cut indoor track. I listed indoor track as a separate sport in the listings because indoor and outdoor track have separate NCAA championships. Indoor track competes during the winter season and outdoor track during the spring. Additionally, indoor track is organized by the MPSF while outdoor track is organized by the Pac-10. Presumably, the same athletes compete in both the indoor and outdoor seasons, so the track team would continue to exist.
I can't imagine the committee touching any of the water sports. Ned Spieker is a major donor who participated in both water polo and swimming, and the quality of the Cal swimming and water polo teams is very high.There are pool upgrades underway, so there is a clear commitment to maintaining the strength of these programs.
One sport that is feeling extremely insecure is gymnastics, particularly the men's team. The Daily Cal recently posted an article about this very concern. Only Cal and furd compete in men's gymnastics on the west coast, and it's not clear if men's gymnastics will remain viable as an NCAA division 1 sport with less than 20 programs remaining.
Besides gymnastics, the sports I would consider most at risk are track, cross country, tennis, and soccer. Those sports have both men's and women's teams, so that would allow for even cuts.
Hopefully, the new conference media contract and ESP will provide enough revenues to allow all sports to continue.
Most importantly, maintaining a highly competitive football team will benefit the entire athletic department. Another long football downturn, and teams will be chopped like we chop furd's head with the axe.
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
71 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think we have too many sports. We have reached a point where we absolutely can’t afford to be using general fund money to pay for athletics, and we need to fix it. I am sure there are cuts that can be made outside of eliminating whole sports, but I doubt there are enough sustainable cuts to get the budget back into balance.
I don’t think tennis is in much danger — all the scholarships for both men’s and women’s tennis are fully endowed. With small team sizes, it’s not a program that has a ton of operating expense, though I don’t know if the opex is endowed. I do think both gymnastics and cross country are probably on their last legs. I could find only one endowed scholarship for the two (four, if you count men’s and women’s) programs combined.
What does kill me is looking at sports like men’s rowing. We have an enormous endowment that contributes more than $250K annually to the costs of the crew program. It was set up to pay fully for the program’s operating expenses, but when Gladstone was AD he changed this to direct it to pay for scholarship costs, with the athletic department picking up the opex. This is a total waste of money; there is no need to offer a full complement of crew scholarships because the main crew competition for rowers is from the Ivy League, who, as we know. don’t offer athletic scholarships. I think in that sport, at least, it’s time to direct the endowment to opex and cut scholarships, while keeping it as a varsity sport.
All the pool sports have fully endowed opex, so they’re not going anywhere.
I would love to see a balance sheet by sport. I would bet a large sum of money that our baseball program costs us a fortune.
I disagree.
Do we field too many teams? NO. We’re giving the maximum number of our students the opportunity to compete at the highest levels of competition. Is the school falling on hard economic times? Sure it is. But athletics aren’t to blame. They’re just the latest scapegoat. The real culprit is the state and national economic clusterfuck. The national economy has been in the toilet for the last couple of years, and the state economy has been in the shitter for over a decade. What do these things have to do with athletics? NOTHING.
Whether or not sports need to be cut is another concern. Hopefully we don’t, but if we do, so be it. But don’t like blaming sports for our financial concerns.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
I disagree
What do athletics have to do with the academic mission of the university? A richer student life, sure. How much would that student life be affected if the golf program were cut? Not much, particularly if any of those students got special admission (not just early reg) because of their golfing.
And sadly, the state economy has everything to do with the university, including losses in funding/increased fees for students at public universities.
I do agree with scooties general point- I doubt there are that many dollars, all things considered, to be recovered from axing fringy programs. But those that are there with no endowments to support them… better the lacrosse team uses old sticks than libraries get closed.
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
by natteringnabob on Jun 28, 2010 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think BearStage’s point is a little subtler than that. I think he’s saying there’s no such thing as “too many sports”. Ideally, we should be competing in any sport that our students want to compete in. However, as funding is limited, especially considering the economy and the state’s budget woes, the reality is that we will probably have to cut some sports. That’s not because there’s anything wrong in having those teams, but because the financial reality is what it is.
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 28, 2010 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
What do athletics have to do with the academic mission of the university? A richer student life, sure.
Why do you so casually discard the notion of a richer student life? That’s exactly what athletics have to do with the mission of the university. Coming to Cal is about SO much more than just academics. If students wanted the academic rigors of Cal and absolutely nothing else, they’d go to MIT.
How much would that student life be affected if the golf program were cut? Not much, particularly if any of those students got special admission (not just early reg) because of their golfing.
Again, you’ve answered your own question. Student life would be affected a GREAT deal for that student! If he or she can’t afford to go to Cal without that scholarship, I’d say that their student life is terribly affected. I have no problem with athletic scholarships. You’re making the assumption that the athlete in question doesn’t “really” deserve to be here because he or she gets a scholarship.
Has Alex Mack taught you nothing? Have the ramifications of Joe Igber’s accomplishments yet to sink in for you? Just because someone earned a sports scholarship doesn’t mean they’re dumb, or can’t cut it at Cal. TONS of students who AREN’T athletes can’t cut it at Cal. Students who got 4.0’s in high school fail out in their freshman year. Why would you place some preconceived notion about academics on athletes? Athletics contributes a richer student life (as you said) to this campus, both for fans and for the athletes.
I doubt there are that many dollars, all things considered, to be recovered from axing fringy programs.
better the lacrosse team uses old sticks than libraries get closed.
These statements are contradictory. If there isn’t much money to be gained by axing “fringe” programs (a statement which I agree with), then how would the cost of the lacrosse team’s equipment possibly effect the much larger costs of keeping a library open, even one of the smaller ones?
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Actually, the cost of lacrosse equipment is probably directly analogous to the cost of keeping libraries open. Three sets of alumni parents stepped up this year and donated $80K to keep Moffitt open 24 hours during exam periods, and to keep a number of satellite libraries open on Saturdays throughout the year. That’s not a ton of money, and is probably not far off the equipment costs of any one of the less-equipment intensive sports. If the University hadn’t had to donate so many millions to keep intercollegiate athletics running in the last couple of years, they would not have had to do that. Who’s going to do it next year?
But this actually raises another question I have been wondering about: the athletics budget has absolutely exploded in the last five years — it has risen nearly $30M since 2003-2004. Why is this? It’s not all SAHPC because construction didn’t even start until last year. I don’t see that we’ve become more competitive in athletics since then, have we added a bunch of sports? Revenues are up as well, but especially with revenues up, we should be able to balance the budget. It’s part of Sandy’s job to be a businesswoman, and she is getting a failing grade at that at the moment.
That’s when gas prices really started to hike, isn’t it? Could it just be travel-related?
Cal Football: Some things, you just accept, repress, and move on.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jun 28, 2010 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions
is probably not far off the equipment costs of any one of the less-equipment intensive sports.
Got any numbers to back that up?
If the University hadn’t had to donate so many millions to keep intercollegiate athletics running in the last couple of years, they would not have had to do that.
The university didn’t HAVE to – they CHOSE to. Instead of blaming the Athletic Department, couldn’t we ask the University why they chose to make that decision?
the athletics budget has absolutely exploded in the last five years — it has risen nearly $30M since 2003-2004.
Show me costs that haven’t exploded in that time.
From the Budget and Planning Highlights of the UC Berkeley Library System:
The campus has not increased the Library’s permanent materials budget since 2001. Over this same period, inflation has increased budget needs annually.
For over a decade, the cost of building library collections has been rising faster than collections budgets. This largely is due to the annual rate of inflation on library materials. It is due, as well, to the growth in knowledge production.
Costs are up across the board. It’s up to the University to say who gets money and who doesn’t. Let’s not make Athletics the scapegoat. Costs are up EVERYWHERE. I’m not saying Athletics doesn’t need to make cuts – but I’m sick of this stupid perception that they’re this terribly massive behemoth that’s sucking money while everyone else is just suffering, poor little babies.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Show me costs that haven’t exploded in that time.
Um, OK. The US CPI has increased a cumulative 18% from 2003 to 2010. UC Berkeley’s annual athletic expenditure has increased 45% over that same period of time.
The university didn’t HAVE to – they CHOSE to. Instead of blaming the Athletic Department, couldn’t we ask the University why they chose to make that decision?
This is where we really disagree. The University isn’t really choosing to fund as much of athletics as they are currently funding. The department is not living within its budget, whatever it is, and the University is handing over more money than it has planned to fund it, every year, after the fact. The athletic department promises to pay it back, and then doesn’t, creating a further funding crisis in the University proper. Though I love Cal Athletics, I love Cal academics more, and I don’t want them penalized while we throw more and more money at athletics. It’s time for a reprioritization.
I don’t understand how we can not look hard at athletics for this, BearStage. The department takes up an increasing amount of a shrinking pie. Do you not think their pie should have to shrink along with that of academics?
I’m not saying Athletics doesn’t need to make cuts
See my above quote. Everyone needs to make cuts, Athletics included. But are we saying that ALL this time, Athletics has not made one single cost-cutting measure? I find that hard to believe. Everyone’s been suffering here. If they need to make cuts, then they need to make cuts. But I’d rather see every sport make smaller cuts then have to completely eliminate any one sport. No sport deserves the nuclear option, just like the University doesn’t go around completely eliminating departments – they have everyone make cuts.
It’s just that lately, there’s this perception that cutting entire sports is this great big solution that’s gonna make everything better, and it’s not. I feel like completely cutting a sport is a drastic, short-sighted solution.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Here’s a link to competition gymnastics equipment. It’s way expensive (a single parallel bars set up alone is nearly $9K). No idea how often it has to be replaced, or how many of each of these things we have for training purposes. Adding things up roughly in my head, just to have one apparatus for each discipline would cost around $60K.
Here’s high school-level lacrosse equipment. It’s about $1100/player for just one set of pads/helmet/stick/cleats, and the team has around 30 players.
That is an eye opener for me. I know how expensive the equipment for equipment intensive sports, like rowing, are (around $40K for a single new boat, and $350 for each oar), but I didn’t realize something like a landing mat for gymnastics could cost $6-10K.
I’m not at all trying to have a go at you, BearStage, or at the Athletic Department in general. All I know is the information I can find online, most of which I’ve linked to in this thread. But what I see is a steadily increasing budget, where across the rest of the campus I see a shrinking one, and I am uncomfortable with that. Like I said up at the top, I would love to get my hands on a full balance sheet. My background includes expertise in corporate re-engineering, and I too can’t believe there aren’t lots of cuts that could be made that would be less painful than cutting whole sports. But I also know it’s really hard to reengineer 10% of one’s budget (which is the current forecast budget overrun) without doing something really drastic.
oh goodness, I don’t think you’re trying to have a go at me! It’s merely a spirited discussion :)
I just don’t want people to see the Athletic Department as this magical honeypot from whence we can pull massive amounts of money, or this giant financial black hole into which we keep throwing money while nothing in return – for it is neither.
Like I said before, I’m not saying that cuts can’t be made, or don’t need to be made. I’m just not happy with the demonization and disproportionate backlash against the Athletic Department that I’ve been seeing from the faculty, the media, and other people.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Now it makes sense to me why Gladstone decided to step up and become AD…at least he hired Tedford while he was at his crew raid…
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 28, 2010 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions
because the main crew competition for rowers is from the Ivy League, who, as we know. don’t offer athletic scholarships
We also compete with perennial power Washington, which also gives crew scholarships. I know of at least one current member of the Cal crew team over whom there was a recruiting battle with UW.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
They don't belong in our beloved Pac-10.
But yeah, considering the economics, we ought to swallow our pride and take the painful cuts of poor performing sports teams. If classes are cut at an important university like Cal, then certainly athletics can’t be immune.
I could live without either gymnastics squad, either indoor track team, and the women’s field hockey team.
Hate to let Stanford brag about doing it all. But reality is reality. They’re a richly endowed private school, and our alma mater serves a much broader, and nobler mission.
by Monica's Dad on Jun 28, 2010 1:15 AM PDT up reply actions
They don’t belong in our beloved Pac-10.
Still not giving up the ghost, eh? Let it go, man.
Also, our men’s gymnastics team competes at a VERY high level, and are just a few years removed from their most recent national championship. Let’s not discount the team’s contributions to the university so quickly.
And our track and field championships as well! DISCUS baby!!
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Stanford athletics is having financial trouble, too. I believe Stanford tries to keep separate things separate and so their big endowment doesn’t necessarily translate to athletics $$$. There were rumors they just had to fire one of their football coaches over $$$$ issues.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
And yet Jimbo gets to keep his gold latrine?
"UC Davis??? hahahahaha" - Aaron Rodgers
by atomsareenough on Jun 28, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m just shocked we don’t compete in Men’s Wrestling.
Proud to hold season tickets to the only NBA team owned by a Russian oligarch.
you'd think
there’s not many cheaper sports out there. This always surprised me.
"I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."- Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti
"What do I want you to do? What are you doing in the National League?"- John McGraw
"117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"- carp (paraphrased)
by natteringnabob on Jun 28, 2010 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I have no doubt this is due to Title IX limitations. I’m pretty sure there aren’t many women’s wrestling teams out there.
by PlayClassyBears on Jun 28, 2010 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I think we need to cut a few sports. It will be painful and sad, but I think it is time. The negative pub of an athletic department taking $ from academics (even if a tiny % of the overall budget) is just too great to bear.
Cal Football: Some things, you just accept, repress, and move on.
Certainly, there would be negative publicity to cutting some sports, tho.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
far, far less in the public sphere. Perhaps internally, among donors, but I feel like that relationship can be repaired rather easily.
Cal Football: Some things, you just accept, repress, and move on.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jun 28, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
* than in the public sphere
Cal Football: Some things, you just accept, repress, and move on.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jun 28, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
If we cut say three smaller sports, I believe the net effect of the publicity would be positive to the University. Right now, we look irresponsible and as though we are prioritizing sports over academics (whether or not this is true). But publicity’s not the reason to do it — the fact that we can’t afford to keep libraries open on Saturdays is.
I should have also mentioned that the cost of scholarships will go up 30% on an annual basis for state residents and 10% for non-residents with the UC tuition increases. I think this might be the factor that ultimately will necessitate some major cuts.
These numbers are only UC fees per semester, not including room and board.
2010-2011 fees: 6230.75 (resident)
17670.25 non-resident)
Fall 2009 fees: 4874.25 (resident)
16208.75 (non-resident)
I wonder if athletes are given an exemption for the non-resident fees? If not, there should be a policy that only football and basketball should be able to award scholarships to out of state residents.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 28, 2010 7:29 PM PDT reply actions
You’re going to kill the non revenue sports if you can’t award scholarships to instate residents.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jun 28, 2010 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions
I think California offers enough talent to remain very competitive. I’m sure the coaches would accept that limitation for their team rather than get shut down.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 28, 2010 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions
The cost of a scholarship is not the same as tuition. It’s the cost of educating a student, plus whatever benefits athletes receive (tutors and such). Meanwhile, the cost of a normal student being the same less tuition and fees (which may result in a net revenue for private schools).
Rising tuition is the result of waning state and federal support to subsidize the actual cost of education. Rising costs of education would come from things like rising administrative, teaching, and utility costs. I think the current crisis is more of the former than the latter, so scholarships aren’t considerably more costly than before, unless you want to take into account that they may be displacing paying students.
Emphasize in-state recruitment, maybe
not just for out-of-state fees but for the cost of sending recruiters around the country. Most sports are probably drawing the majority of talent from in-state or western states as it is.
At least until the Pac-12 revenue comes in, or the economy picks up.
There are only 23 men’s volleyball programs in NCAA Division I.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
Watching hunky dudes spike a ball is serious business.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Jun 28, 2010 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions
men's vb NCAA programs
I don’t think there are D2, D3 gymnastics programs.
Men’s vb is way broader.
There are 23 D1 mvball NCAA programs, 14 D2 programs, 52 D3 programs 18 NAIA programs.
California mvball D1 programs are: USC, UCLA, Northridge, Pepperdine, Pacific, Long Beach State, UCSB, Stanfurd (won the Final 4 this year/ grumble)…. and mvball plays in the MPSF….with BYU, Hawaii, and UCSD who are D2, but are very good…(btw: I read this morning that UCSD overall is working on moving to D1 status.)
by oskigobears on Jun 29, 2010 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions
i’ve def seen men’s volleyball at cal, is it a club sport or something?
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
by GoldBlooded on Jun 29, 2010 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Cal's men's volleyball
Club sport since 1985. Before THAT it was NCAA varsity sport here. Downgraded to club with several other varsity sports when football $$ started rising.
Announced in 1998 to go back to Varsity in 2000…postponed 2 months later when UCLA and USC were sued for Title 9…..and Cal had the same likelihood happening…as women’s sports here needed some attn. 3 women’s varsity sports added since then; all? most? venues upgraded…operational/scholie $$ increased…
Fed review for Title 9 was maybe 3 years ago?? every 10 years. Cal passed…with things to attend to.
Cal mvb at club level has won 6 college club titles since 1985. Twice what any other club has won. There are about 350 college club mvb teams. Cal in top 5.
Toughest school to come to and play mvb anywhere. No admit tags.
Admits have 4.35+ gpa, and higher. www.calmensvball.com
by oskigobears on Jun 29, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
other info
UCI also should be in the above list/MPSF list; outstanding program. Won two FF last 5 years.
Penn State runs about the same # of sports as Cal….no rugby / yes men’s vb (won FF last year)….don’t know their $$$
Occasionally good D1 mvball programs out of MPSF are PSU and Ohio State, but basically this is a western sport at the top levels…..there is some very good HS men’s vball across the nation, but the best are recruited to play out here in the MPSF.
Other D1 mvb: Ball State, George Mason, Harvard, IUPUI, Loyola, NJIT, Princeton, 2 more out east
UCSC plays men’s vb D3 as an independent. Generally top 3. D3.
Mvb D3 is rapidly expanding. Official NCAA tourney now. Efforts currently being directed to adding D2 programs….while D1 athletics are being sorted out and this current conference shuffle continues likely for some 5 years. After that mvb D1 programs will expand it appears.
by oskigobears on Jun 29, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Cal vs UCLA
Does anyone readily know a rough comparison of the two schools’ athletic departments.
I can only speak anecdotally that UCLA seems to be running a similarly prolific department but doing so on considerably lower revenue and having to rent the Rose Bowl. It just seems like overhead costs must be kept in better check there.
According to this LA Times article, their budget is $65M annually (the same as ours), but they support five fewer sports. I’m trying to find numbers on their revenues, but struggling. Will post if I find them.
Hmm, last I saw the revenue was much lower. Does that budget include all the donations for the Pauley renovation? That might skew things a bit.
Still can’t find revenues, but here’s another interesting article looking at the problem from a national perspective and compares all the public schools. It confirms a $65M UCLA budget and has ours at $56M, so they’re probably 2006 numbers.
Ohio State runs 36 sports on a $115M budget. Holy crap.
Also, look at the Tennessee numbers in the above article. $86M budget for 20 sports. I’d love to see their facilities!
How do you run 36 sports? Not even as a budgetary concern, but how do you come up with 36 different sports?
Looks like that they have 35 on their website. I don’t think “Athletics” counts as a sport.
But anyway, men’s and women’s rifle, Men’s and women’s pistol, men’s volleyball, women’s golf, men’s spirit, women’s spirit all help to create a higher sports count.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
There’s a banner at the top of the post showing this as an editor’s pick.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
Last nigh, this was in its own section entitled “SBN Bay Area Editor’s Pick” abovethe Recommended Fanposts section in the upper right. That is no longer there, but I do see the banner, yes.
CGB's Jimmy Carter
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by 























































